Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 30 November, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MMO No. 175 of 2016.
Reserved on: 25.11.2016.
Date of decision: 30th , November, 2016.
Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner.
of
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ..... Respondents.
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr.N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
SI Darshan Singh, P.S. Haroli, Una, ASI Gian Chand, P.P. Pandoga, Una and ASI Rajesh Kumar, P.S. Kangra.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of FIR No. 140 of 2013 dated 7.8.2013 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC and consequent supplementary challan in Criminal Case No. 24-I-14 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:39 :::HCHP 2 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Una.
.
2. When the matter initially came up before this Court on 17.6.2016, the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate were ordered to be stayed. Thereafter, the case was taken up from time to of time and finally on 9.9.2016 this Court passed the following order:
"Looking into the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, I feel that both the parties should be summoned rt so as to make an endeavour for amicably settling the issue once for all. List on 25.11.2016, when both the petitioner and respondent No.2 as also the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation, shall remain personally present in the Court."
3. The circumstances under which the aforesaid order came to be passed was that the petitioner represented that he after having compromised all the issues with his wife i.e. respondent No.2 had gone abroad and in the meantime when he landed at Mumbai Airport he was arrested there by the local police of Police Station, Haroli, District Una as there was active connivance in between respondent No.2 and the local police. He claimed that he was harassed by the local police and it was in this background that the aforesaid order came to be passed.
4. In compliance to the order dated 9.9.2016, three police officials namely SI Darshan Singh, ASI Gian Chand and ASI Rajesh Kumar are present today and they have informed the Court that immediately after the petitioner had left for Middle East, there was a look out notice issued against the petitioner and it was in compliance ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:39 :::HCHP 3 thereof that he was arrested, that too, not by the local police of Police Station, Haroli as alleged, but by the officials of the immigration .
department and these officials after arresting the petitioner had informed the local police of Police Station, Haroli, who thereafter reached Mumbai and obtained two days transit remand of the of petitioner and brought him to Una.
5. As regards the case, it is represented that the same is rt already pending adjudication before the Court below and customary divorce as sought to be proved by the petitioner has not at all been effected between the parties.
6. I am pained to note that the petitioner has deliberately misled this Court and upon his misrepresentation, has summoned three responsible officials, whose services could otherwise have been conveniently better utilized in the field. The petitioner has tried to play hide and seek with the Court and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Every litigant, who approaches the Court, must come forward not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective.
7. On the other hand, it is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone and further ensure that no one abuses the process of the Court.
8. It is more than settled that a person approaching the Court must come with clean hands, clean mind and clean heart.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:39 :::HCHP 4The courts of law are meant for imparting justice and, therefore, its process cannot be permitted to be abused. Property-grabbers, .
tax-evaders, Bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely and this Court has no hesitation of to say that such a person whose case is based on falsehood or misrepresentation has no right to approach the Court and can be rt summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
9. As the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective, he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The instant petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed, so also the pending application(s). Interim order granted by this Court on 17.6.2016, is vacated.
November 30th, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:38:39 :::HCHP